The High Court has refused three students’ application for judicial review of changes to the qualifying distance and mature-student eligibility for higher-rate student grants.
In a judgment delivered on 25 April 2012, Mr Justice Hedigan found that the changes did not breach section 6 of the Student Support Act 2011. He also found that the applicants had not established a legitimate expectation that they would continue receiving the non-adjacent rate for the remainder of their courses. The court refused the relief sought. It did not decide the Minister’s separate objection that two applicants lacked standing to bring the case.
The applicants were students at the National University of Ireland, Dundalk Institute of Technology and Galway/Mayo Institute of Technology. For the 2010/2011 academic year, all qualified for the non-adjacent grant rate. The scheme for 2011/2012 extended the qualifying distance from 24 kilometres to 45 kilometres. The third applicant, a mature student, also lost automatic eligibility for the higher non-adjacent rate.
They sought orders quashing the changes and restoring the previous criteria, along with declarations and damages. They argued that section 6 preserved their existing grant entitlements while they completed their courses. They also said they had chosen their courses and arranged their finances expecting the relevant grant criteria to remain in place.
The Minister argued that the applicants had not been promised a particular grant rate for the duration of their courses. The Minister also relied on the state of the public finances and said the changes formed part of a response to economic pressures.
The judge interpreted section 6 as preserving receipt of the grant itself, rather than guaranteeing a particular amount or the same conditions. He said the grant schemes were annual and that the 2010 scheme did not guarantee future grant levels.
On legitimate expectation, the judge accepted that affected students could form an identifiable group. But he found that no particular representation had been shown and that, given the worsening economic situation and the announced changes, it was not reasonable to expect the previous practice to continue. He added that, even if such an expectation had been established, the public interest in reducing expenditure would outweigh it in the circumstances.
The court therefore refused the applicants’ requested relief. It made no determination on the standing objection, saying its other findings disposed of the case.